Diagnose the CLT
A team brings data every week, but most of the conversation explains why each class is different. What is preventing the team from moving forward?
The data is being used to explain differences rather than investigate them and make decisions.
The team average increases from 76% to 84%. What would you want to know before calling the instructional change a success?
Who improved, on which skills, and whether previously struggling students benefited.
Two people dominate every discussion while several members rarely contribute. What could the facilitator change besides simply asking people to participate more?
Change the structure of the discussion: rounds, protocols, preparation, roles, etc.
One teacher wants to give students an additional day before the common assessment because her class lost instructional time. Fair accommodation or threat to commonality?
Defensible either way, depending on the team’s agreements and whether conditions remain meaningfully comparable.
One teacher routinely develops the team’s strongest resources, assessments, and plans. Everyone appreciates the help. Why might this still be a problem?
The team may be building dependence on one person rather than collective capacity.
One teacher’s students score substantially higher than the others. Before assuming the instruction was better, what else should the team rule out?
Differences in scoring, timing, assessment conditions, student groups, prior knowledge, etc.
A team keeps returning to an issue it supposedly resolved three meetings ago. What might that tell you?
The earlier conversation may not have produced a clear agreement, decision, owner, or follow-through.
A team changes an assessment after students struggle badly with it. When is that appropriate, and when is it lowering expectations?
Appropriate when fixing misalignment, unclear design, or a bad measure; problematic when simply reducing rigor because students struggled.
A successful CLT begins struggling after one experienced member leaves. What does that suggest about the team’s previous success?
Some of its success may have rested on individual expertise rather than durable team practices and shared understanding.
Nearly every student misses the same assessment item. Give two very different explanations the team should investigate
A genuine learning gap versus a poorly designed or misaligned item.
You observe a CLT making a decision you think is weak, but the team arrived at it collaboratively. When should you intervene, and when should you let them test it?
Intervene around non-negotiables, serious risk, or clear misalignment; otherwise, reasonable decisions can sometimes be tested and learned from.
A CLT has used the same approach for years and consistently gets strong results. Should they keep experimenting or protect what works?
Strong teams preserve effective practice while remaining responsive to new evidence and changing student needs.